[KR...]

[size=large]Please keep all political discussions out of this thread!!!

[/size]


Army Prepares 'Robo-Soldier' for Iraq

Made by a small Massachusetts company, the SWORDS, short for Special Weapons Observation Reconnaissance Detection Systems, will be the first armed robotic vehicles to see combat, years ahead of the larger Future Combat System vehicles currently under development by big defense contractors such as Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics Corp.

Military officials like to compare the roughly three-foot-high robots favorably to human soldiers: They don't need to be trained, fed or clothed. They can be boxed up and warehoused between wars. They never complain. And there are no letters to write home if they meet their demise in battle.

Read the full article here: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...slinging_robot

 

[Jeff Guidry]

I seem to recall similar units in use by police, especially during hostage situations.

The primary advantage that I can see with robots is elimination of 'snap' decisions, like the Fallujah marine who shot the seemingly incapacitated terrorist. An operator of a robot has no fear of his life, so he can be much more choosey about shoot/don't shoot choices.

I see these units has helping to preserve civilian lives, as the robot can stand and wait to attack until the civilian can effect his escape.

However, since a robot likely doesn't have the dexterity of a human weapon operator, I don't see that these robots could possibly replace the normal infantryman. A human has a fineness of control of a weapon that a robot at this point cannot duplicate.

My guess is that these units will be used to make initial sweeps of dangerous closed quarters situations, sent into possible chem/bio infected areas, and maybe sniper installations.

 

[Bunnyears]

Why don't they just get the Killer Clowns from Outer Space? They can do the same job, but with some real style!

 

[aeriyn]

The future is now!

As robotics advances as fast as it has been, I expect to see more and more typically human-operated tasks being switched over to mechanicals, especially dangerous things such as military applications.

Anything that saves lives is good in my book!

 

[Tim D]

Its just basically an unmanned mini-tank. And I disagree it'll be people that still handle close-quarter combats with quick reaction and mobility, but these mini-tanks can patrol flat surfaced wider area locations. IMO its only a matter of time til PC Gamer's are happy to enlist. Which is quite a funny idea of a highly trained soldier chugging down soda pop and munching on chips.

Just use very high quality servo's and gun mounted camera's and I am sure that there will be split-second differences in timing and control, but the big difference is that split-second may end up in a disfunctional robot instead of a dead man (conversely that split-second may save lives as well). If you were asked if you would rather be behind some computer monitor operating a killing robot, or be a person put against it in a deathmatch...I'd have to choose the computer when you are talking about the differences of 'game over' in each scenario. And lets face it...the very top gamers really do have astounding hand/eye coordination and fast reaction even if it is only with a monitor and keyboard/mouse.

Another difference is that infantry doesn't change much in anatomy over the years. Robotic weapons can and will. On the otherhand catering to the fact that Americans are on average over-weight and out-of-shape, albiet most likely pretty good gamers, is not necessarily a good thing.

 

[Jeff Guidry]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim D And I disagree it'll be people that still handle close-quarter combats with quick reaction and mobility, but these mini-tanks can patrol flat surfaced wider area locations.

See, that's where I think a unit like this would be most vulnerable, in a wide open area where an RPG can easily destroy it. These robots likely will be pretty resistant to small arms fire, so they can hang tough in closed quarters situations. If the human operator perceives a hand grenade threat fast enough, it can move the robot away so that a direct hit with a grenade is avoided. But of course, the enemy could adopt the 'Saving Private Ryan' trick to make the grenade stick...at that point the only thing to do is take off and nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

 

[bg4533]

Fido isn't cutting it anymore, can I get one of these as a pet?

I imagine it would not be too hard to make it so a single operator could control a few of these from the same contoller. You could really make a large force of them that way.

 

[fr4c]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bg4533 I imagine it would not be too hard to make it so a single operator could control a few of these from the same contoller. You could really make a large force of them that way.

like the game Command and Conquer?

 

[The_Mac]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Guidry I seem to recall similar units in use by police, especially during hostage situations. The primary advantage that I can see with robots is elimination of 'snap' decisions, like the Fallujah marine who shot the seemingly incapacitated terrorist. An operator of a robot has no fear of his life, so he can be much more choosey about shoot/don't shoot choices. I see these units has helping to preserve civilian lives, as the robot can stand and wait to attack until the civilian can effect his escape. However, since a robot likely doesn't have the dexterity of a human weapon operator, I don't see that these robots could possibly replace the normal infantryman. A human has a fineness of control of a weapon that a robot at this point cannot duplicate. My guess is that these units will be used to make initial sweeps of dangerous closed quarters situations, sent into possible chem/bio infected areas, and maybe sniper installations.

Being able to reliably hit a nickel from 300 meters is good enough for me. (most infantrymen can hit a basketball from the same range).

I see these as being a useful tool in many, many different situations. Espescially ones where there's a good chance of a trap, bomb, or other large threat to life. It's much easier to lose a $200 000 machine than a person.

And there are already gamers out there in the army, they're piloting UAV's, driving tanks, and flying planes and helicopters.

 

[Stephonovich]

Meh... $200K apiece is a bit steep, considering an M4A1 (even fully equipped) 'only' weighs in at about $35K. Before people bash me about the value of a human life, I'm well aware. But you also have to consider monetary issues. The price of war (money-wise) is already sky-high. Do we really need Yet Another Nifty Gadget?

I do support it for The Mac's reasons, though - possible known threat. If you're fairly certain there's a trap waiting for you, send in the 'bot recon first. Heck, the enemy might be so suprised you could get a few cheap shots off before they thought to fire back

Mods: if this falls under 'philosophy', I'll eat my eat. Then remove the post.

 

[aeriyn]

I thought an abrams tank cost closer to 4 mil?

I know fighter jets are ridiculously expensive, and I thought tanks would share that sentiment.

 

[Czilla9000]

Quote:

Originally Posted by aeriyn I thought an abrams tank cost closer to 4 mil? I know fighter jets are ridiculously expensive, and I thought tanks would share that sentiment.

According to this site (http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/abrams.htm), they cost between $4,300,000-$5,600,000 depending on model. If they only cost 35k I would buy one.

 

[setmenu]

Remotely operated machines similar to this could be very useful when faced [or using] with 'unconventional' weapons that would require a regular human being to be encumbered with protective equipment.

Setmenu

 

[KR...]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephonovich Meh... $200K apiece is a bit steep, considering an M4A1 (even fully equipped) 'only' weighs in at about $35K. Before people bash me about the value of a human life, I'm well aware. But you also have to consider monetary issues. The price of war (money-wise) is already sky-high. Do we really need Yet Another Nifty Gadget?

If you compare prices these robots, cost a lot less than most of the things that we use.

Quote:

I do support it for The Mac's reasons, though - possible known threat. If you're fairly certain there's a trap waiting for you, send in the 'bot recon first. Heck, the enemy might be so suprised you could get a few cheap shots off before they thought to fire back

Anything that save lives is a step in the right direction as far as I am concern and I know that everyone can agree with that.

 

[rickcr42]

looks like something to send ahead of convoys and maybe clear the roadside bombs and check out the terrain remotely and without loss of life.Make those punks come out and fight instead of using remote detonations to indiscriminately kill anyone in the kill zone.

As far as money/cost.Any amount is worth the cost if it saves even a single life.We can build more "stuff' but i have not yet met the person who can build a human being.At any cost.

And there is a thing far too many forget about how much something costs.someone has to actually build the damn things and that means someone is being payed.When "cost" is mentioned it is not some black hole where loot is being tossed but our tax dollars being put right back into the economy.Same goes for NASA,Govt. construction projects,even "pork barrel" projects.

Not sure if the above can be considered political or not.If so i can always edit